Liberalism causes terrorism

You dont have to persecute anyone. Close the borders and slowly and humanely deport unwanteds completely until a very small and manageable number remain (a little bit of diversity really is flavour, a lot is suicide). Let those whites that hate their own societies so much live somewhere else, perhaps in the thirld world; they can provide the little bit of diversity over there (not too many of them). Who knows, they might even become wildly successful and hatch some kind of global conspiracy to take over/destroy the world!

Do you imagine it is a worthwhile consideration to give a toss about the unwanted feeling unwanted? I mean, the very nature of unwantedness is being unworthy of consideration. My own experience of being unwanted resulted in a healthy apartness from those not wanting me. I didn't care about them, and they didn't care about me: we all just got on with our lives.

Do you imagine it is a worthwhile consideration to give a toss about the unwanted feeling unwanted? I mean, the very nature of unwantedness is being unworthy of consideration. My own experience of being unwanted resulted in a healthy apartness from those not wanting me. I didn't care about them, and they didn't care about me: we all just got on with our lives.

Understood, however this is personal experience. I've no doubt that what you say definitely applies, but what happens if the 'unwanted' decide they want to stay where they are? If you don't want them there, but they want to be there, what happens then?

Most humans have a subliminal longing to be a part of a group; we are social creatures. Whether introvert or extrovert, people like to be with people like them, generally. When other groups treat them as unworthy, it could be perceived as threatening. On a "get-people-who-don't-belong-here-out-of-my-country" level, this could spell disaster.

Just have to make sure you avoid bad blood, is all. Nothing wrong with being unwanted, but communicate that it isn't anything personal.

Let those whites that hate their own societies so much live somewhere else, perhaps in the thirld world; they can provide the little bit of diversity over there (not too many of them). Who knows, they might even become wildly successful and hatch some kind of global conspiracy to take over/destroy the world!

"Might"? Five or so millenia from now, this is exactly how history will remember the USA.

The problems we are facing stem from the moral code imposed by the Enlightenment and the replacement of an aristocratic class, based on blood and land, with secular elites united by ideology with membership dependent on thinking and saying the right things - an Ideological Caste - with pretensions to morality based on abstractions.

What, so you think that, before liberalism, when people had an 'organic' or 'homogeneous' society... everything was hunky dory? Do you think that because everyone merely shared a religion and history, that there would have been no political differences: that groups were not persecuted, that class structures didn't exist, and that people would not have wanted to separate politically if they had the freedom, wealth and education? Have you ever read a history book?

Do I think the past was an idyllic perfect utopia? No.Was it better than what we have now? Yes.

I prefer a society that understands that history, race, and religion are all intertwined. That cultivates a heroic spirit and doesn't feel guilty for being militarily strong. That understands that not all people are equal and that men and women aren't the same. What do you prefer?

Also, I wonder why you think class structures and persecuting unwanted groups are a negative. Seems like you want to have an egalitarian non-judgmental society...

Quote

I just don't see this "implosion" when I walk down the street or visit the city.

Reading your posts, I'm not surprised.

You might prefer this type of society, but it's just not going to happen unless you roll back the last 400 years of scientific and economic developments, which have replaced traditional forms of association with rational forms. If you want traditional society you have to roll back post-industrialism, industrialism and this leads to you having to roll back science. None of this is likely to happen, not merely because human nature dictates that people value the spoils of post-industrialism and industrialism more than they value non-tangible goods, but also because a nation that did this would feel open to domination from more technologically and economically advanced countries.

A culture bound by racial association is not economically efficient. You can't move skills and labour accross boarders. A culture in which people live agrarian lives in rural areas is not economically efficient. You need workers living in cities and massing around centres of production. A culture bound by tribal allegiances is not economically efficient compared with a culture of atomistic individuals who can be shifted around to suit the needs of the market. NONE OF THIS IS ADVOCATING ANYTHING. It's just sociological observation. And people want economic efficiency!

The things people have gained from changes to society enabled by the scientific and industrial revolutions (see my first post) (which as a by-product, changed the TYPES of association within our culture: from family and tribal associations to beaurocratic, atomistic and 'rational') outweigh what has been lost, in some important statistical sense at the population level. Think of it as a process of cultural selection.

If this wasn't the case then history would be going in... the other direction

You're an idiot if you think this. I'm not advocating any political system. I'm simply stating what anyone who looks at the facts can see for christ's sake! The direction of history in the last century and particularly in the last 50 years has been aggressively towards liberal democracy. Calling this 'leftist' is like calling a friend who is watching a football game a defector because they observe that the other team is clearly winning.

True enough, but liberal democratic capitalism still isn't sustainable, particularly economically but demographically as well. LDC is best fit for the Anglo Saxon type from which it originated. Deviate a bit from this lineage and people start looking back to when they had a better fit for themselves:

LDC isn't sustainable economically and demographically, compared to what exactly? Compared to communism? Former communist countries collapsed in scores in the 20th century and reverted/converted to LDC! Compared to autocraticies and military dictatorships? These also fell in scores across the middle east and south america in the 20th century, to be replaced with, you guessed it LDC. Compared to traditionalism? I don't even know any societies still characterised by traditional structures... perhaps some islamist nations? Islam probably represents the only challenge to LDC on a world scale, but even islamic societies are modernising slowly.

The point is, I don't see any LDC nations slipping to communism or traditionalism, or making any other MAJOR reivisions to their paradigms. Major revisions have happened in the other direction for the whole of the 20th century, however.

Tribal/agrarian culture needs far less in the way of an "efficient economy". Before global culture, economies generally were sufficient unto the day. In fact, as far as we know, the economy was never a sickly, fragile thing that needed putting on a pedestal and constant propping up. It was what it was: only one facet of a larger thing.

Anyway, the way things are going, we will get to witness, in real time, what happens to a society that replaces God, nation, family, and tribe with competitive Global Economy.

Anyway, the way things are going, we will get to witness, in real time, what happens to a society that replaces God, nation, family, and tribe with competitive Global Economy.

This is the idea that environmentalism constitutes a contradiction to LDC.

You might be right, but I don't think nations are going to revert back to traditional structures. Not if the environmental 'correction' isn't violent enough that we loose the scientific method and understanding. As long as this remains the process of industrialisation, and the associated underlying forms of social association, will start again.

I realise I'm sound overly fatalistic and deterministic in my posts on this topic, but i'm just keen to stress the point that culture is bound up with larger forces in society, and to share what i've been thinking about lately. If this involves me going too far to make the point then that is unfortunate but it's still a worthwhile topic to discuss, especially in light of this thread which seems to suggest that liberalism is so bound up with internal contradictions that it is causing terrorists to appear left right and centre, which is nonsense.

Compared to communism? Former communist countries collapsed in scores in the 20th century and reverted/converted to LDC! Compared to autocraticies and military dictatorships? These also fell in scores across the middle east and south america in the 20th century, to be replaced with, you guessed it LDC. Compared to traditionalism? I don't even know any societies still characterised by traditional structures... perhaps some islamist nations? Islam probably represents the only challenge to LDC on a world scale, but even islamic societies are modernising slowly.

The point is, I don't see any LDC nations slipping to communism or traditionalism, or making any other MAJOR reivisions to their paradigms. Major revisions have happened in the other direction for the whole of the 20th century, however.

The first and second paragraphs are in summary false dilemmas. The second is a strawman. Instead, in the near future, we'll no longer have much that properly resembles administrative liberalism, democracy, or exactly what came prior to them.

Sure, people will have liberal free love brothels and drug dens. Tiny groups may decide among themselves to take this or that course. But its essential leadership model, the bureaucratic or transactional one, will prove impractical for demographic reasons: lack of available character and intellect for all the staffing needed, widespread normative corruption and complete loss of public confidence because of the foregoing.

In the 22nd century, where once LDC seemed to have planted a few roots, I would expect the return of various forms of transformational and charismatic leadership organizations including tribalism with countryside warlords and religious leaders like clerics, mullas and imams.

We'll get plenty of change in the West with the continued growth of the existing grey market salvager and farmsteader economy, organized crime supplanting state government with no-go zones, and the probable return of independent city-states in the face of the disintigration of federalism. The nation-state is getting outcompeted on multiple fronts.

International forms of capitalism of the magnitude and scale we have now rely entirely on fossil fuels. There is an inverse correlation between abundance of fuel at a given time and the recession of global trade. The resource only replenishes over the course of geological ages, far outstripped by the pace of consumption. Given the current rate, next century may highlight the return of dirigibles and sailing ships.

But its essential leadership model, the bureaucratic or transactional one, will prove impractical for demographic reasons: lack of available character and intellect for all the staffing needed, widespread normative corruption and complete loss of public confidence because of the foregoing.

I don't know where you're coming from. Why will there suddenly be a lack of available character and intellect in the bureaucratic world? And how will this reverse the entire direction of history?

In the 22nd century, where once LDC seemed to have planted a few roots, I would expect the return of various forms of transformational and charismatic leadership organizations including tribalism with countryside warlords and religious leaders like clerics, mullas and imams.

You're completely talking past me. I've presented an underlying theory of why the forms of association in post-industrial socities are going in the other direction, away from traditional forms, due to the needs of industralian and then post-industrial economies, and here you're just asserting 'nah, forms of associations will go the otherway again at unspecified time 'x' in the future', without giving any reason or justification for thinking this. Is it because you think there will be collapse of the economic system that, on the reasoning i've presented, drives forms of social association, re: your last point below?

We'll get plenty of change in the West with the continued growth of the existing grey market salvager and farmsteader economy, organized crime supplanting state government with no-go zones, and the probable return of independent city-states in the face of the disintigration of federalism. The nation-state is getting outcompeted on multiple fronts.

International forms of capitalism of the magnitude and scale we have now rely entirely on fossil fuels. There is an inverse correlation between abundance of fuel at a given time and the recession of global trade. The resource only replenishes over the course of geological ages, far outstripped by the pace of consumption. Given the current rate, next century may highlight the return of dirigibles and sailing ships.

See my last response to Crow, if you would! If you think i'm wrong, let me know.

It is actually about reversing history in a sense. Not materially, but to get out of the linear/progressive/Whig history mindset is, from the point of view of that mindset, turning back time. This is an affectation for some, an excuse to call others backwards, but you can see the substance of it in social justice discourse; gay marriage is like black people being able to drink from the same fountain. People who are against the normalization of homosexuality are the same people as those who opposed civil rights. The worst part is, there is actually truth to that, but all lies need some for that extra oomph.

Bureaucracy itself is a problematic thing even removed from the liberal/demotist issue. It doesnt matter if you have enough driven, efficient people to maximize the efficiency of gigantic systems if that efficiency itself leads to eventual breakdown. Some noblesse oblige, some inefficiency and perhaps we could have something sustainable but I think the latter will seem an impossible sacrifice. Actual breakdown is required.

I appreciate that this can sound like wild eyed doomsaying, but is the present course sutainable in any way? Are we going to wait for some sort of massive technological breakthrough to provide us with the holy grail needed for infinite growth? Is such a condition even healthy for human beings? Are we bound to our present course because it gives `good` results towards the goal of collectivized herds ruled by the id and tiny elites?

Traditional structures are emergent and they already do exist in a lot of the world (not the western world I am afraid) though they are under threat. A reversion to these is not an unreasonable prospect. Arguments for tradition are not only that it passes the test of history (this can be debated, but fuck debates) but that it is compatible with human nature. I am speaking mostly in a social sense as material concerns are ultimately secondary to this, tradition does not have to be an old system in every single sense. Ultimately there may be no escaping prosperity and breakdown, but with a time tested, inefficient (able to withstand great stress without completely falling apart) traditional system, something well formed may rise from the ashes. The current course may truly be an end of history, in the opposite sense of how this statement is usually used. This may be the last cycle, the highest fall. Now that really is doomsaying, and I dont believe it, but that I cant say it is entirely baseless is a worrying prospect.